Witcher 3 - Preview @ GamesTM

While most developers eagerly create choices, CD Projekt RED has created a world, the state of which organically moulds itself around the consequences of the player’s actions. You will never see everything that the Witcher series has to offer, but then, your journey feels uniquely your own.

“You don’t even want to know how much work that takes,” laughs Maciej Szcześnik, lead gameplay designer on The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. “Really. We’re making a game with 36 different possible endings, 12 world states and three fully playable epilogues. And all this is powered by your choices and is interconnected. If you want to get the scope of it, picture this: 100 hours of gameplay, a ton of quests and decisions to be made. Imagine the time needed to put all this into one coherent piece. Yes, you don’t even want to know.”

As the last part of the trilogy, it promises a fittingly epic conclusion to Geralt of Rivia’s story, not to mention the journey taken by the studio itself over the past decade. The independent Polish studio has grown enormously from its inauspicious origins as a distributor, branching into videogame development in 2002 after dalliances in the localisation market and a brief flirtation with porting console games to PC (the predominant format in Poland). 2007’s The Witcher was CD Projekt RED’s inaugural release, the most expensive game developed in Poland at the time, using BioWare’s Aurora Engine and with the majority of the development team learning the ropes as it went along.

Agree with you if by "Skyrim" we include what mods bring to the table. But vanilla Skyrim isn't too hard to "kill". Didn't make it to whiterun before stopping my first playthrough to wait for some mods. Otoh, I have yet to finish Witcher 2. That game made me realize by the start of Act II that I need good combat to play an rpg of that kind through.

I really struggle to get why every journalist writing about Witcher III emphasizes the theme of 'end' to Geralt's story. Author of Geralt's world pan Sapkowski still quite alive and in good health. Only recently he published a new book about adventures of greyhaired witcher Season of Storms. Yeah, it's prequel, still my point stands. It's even more absurd since strictly speaking story of Gwynbleidd already 'ended' according to canon by pitchfork of unknown peasant during pogrom in Rivia.
The story told in games is great piece of fan art … and nothing more. Is it so difficult to not forget whom we owe the greatest tribute and respect author's opinion about his creation?

I suspect it will be a skyrim killer as much as all those MMO's claimed to be a WoW killer. Skyrim is popular for a reason and for all the people who think it is bland and boring there are many who find it a great adventure and role playing game.

That being said I plan on getting Witcher 3. I did not like Witcher 1 or Witcher 2 and did not finish either of them. But hopefully W3 will be better.

I am more looking forward to Divinity: Original Sin, probably the first game to come out that will pull me away from Skyrim (although I will also try ESO).

— Character is centrality, the impossibility of being displaced or overset. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Originally Posted by mazur49
I really struggle to get why every journalist writing about Witcher III emphasizes the theme of 'end' to Geralt's story. Author of Geralt's world pan Sapkowski still quite alive and in good health. Only recently he published a new book about adventures of greyhaired witcher Season of Storms. Yeah, it's prequel, still my point stands. It's even more absurd since strictly speaking story of Gwynbleidd already 'ended' according to canon by pitchfork of unknown peasant during pogrom in Rivia.
The story told in games is great piece of fan art … and nothing more. Is it so difficult to not forget whom we owe the greatest tribute and respect author's opinion about his creation?

As both are fiction, who is to say what is the "real" Geralt? Much like books made into movies, fan fiction, franchises that change hands, etc, the stories have so diverged from the starting point that they are no longer related.

The majority of the gaming community that follows Witcher 3 doesn't care about the books, the originality, the prequals etc. When the game ends it, that will be the gaming communities "end" of Geralt.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, its just a perspective issue. Much like listening to people argue over the "original" comic book heros VS new age, or remakes/reboots of something. If you only are exposed to one facet, then that is your "original".

Originally Posted by sakichop
I can't see this being a skyrim killer because even though it open world I see it as a different kind of game, also I still have to play Geralt and no full mod support.

That would be the biggest flaw in comparison to Skyrim: no customization of the character. I can't see how any game can top Skyrim without it. People nowadays don't like to be locked up in a predefined character, open world or not, I find it hard to see how any open-world game would ever top Skyrim's popularity with this flaw. Maybe it would be very popular, but not quiet.

I remember a game (a rare gem, in my opinion) that got bad opinions: L.A. Noire. It happened to diverge from the open-world and multi-choice formula that Rockstar company used before. And its great story, plot, interesting cases, etc., didn't help. That's why I'm wary of these Skyrim comparisons: they try to attract the Skyrim crowd, and I think the idea is that it's basically Skyrim with plot, but such a game might not be what they expect, just like what happened with GTA fans who played L.A. Noire expecting to see GTA. Does it make sense?

Originally Posted by Wisdom
The majority of the gaming community that follows Witcher 3 doesn't care about the books, the originality, the prequals etc.

True. Even though I read all the books, I consider the games to be a separate alternative to them.

Originally Posted by Wisdom
As both are fiction, who is to say what is the "real" Geralt?

Exactly because it's fiction, only the author could be the one who decides when, where and how to finish the story. Let's take for example Hamlet. There are hundreds of different interpretations of this story by various artists. But none so far could avoid, skip or ignore a focal point of the story - death by poison. Hamlet without poison is no longer Hamlet. The same goes with witcher Geralt. His death is necessary part of the story. Just think about it. Superhuman swordsman killed by clumsy and ignorant peasant with pitchfork. Raised, trained and forcefully mutated to be a perfect protector of human race against non-humane horrors killed by humans while trying to save non-humans. Tragic irony or ironical tragedy? Both?
I struggle again to find right answer. One thing I know for sure is that without this there is no Geralt.

Originally Posted by Wisdom
The majority of the gaming community that follows Witcher 3 doesn't care about the books, the originality, the prequals etc. When the game ends it, that will be the gaming communities "end" of Geralt..

Your absolutely correct as I don't care about the books as they were never translated until after the release of the first Witcher game.

I'm sure if I read the books first my view would be different, but you can not change first impressions. This is probably true for many who only played the games.

Now I’m also not a diehard fan of the universe so I won’t care about cannon as much. All I want to do is play the next sequel to finish my game story.

I leave the debates about cannon to others as I find these discussions boring.

To not care at all about the literature and stories by which the Witcher's tales are derived seems a bit silly and narrow minded; blind-siding yourself needlessly away from the well of inspiration certainly won't gain you the depth or appreciation for the lore that others will gain. Also, it's likely you'll be wrong when issues of canon arise.

Further, this whole dichotomous concept of a "Skyrim Killer" is rather puerile I think. There's always choice and I know that I'll enjoy Witcher 3 just as I enjoyed my time with Skyrim. They are by no means fighting for individual validation on my shelf space and can quite happily exist as different experiences in their own right without any "killing" being necessary.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
All I want to do is play the next sequel to finish my game story.

Sorry, but you cannot build a roof without walls. You may digress that game has built its own walls. But those are just wallpapers. Without true walls (books) they will not stand a second. Books provide dimensions and pacing to the continuum of the game. While they stand you could turn Geralt's story into political detective, existential drama or love story, you can make it whatever you like. Willfully ignoring this fact is a strange choice to my taste.

mazur49, yours is truly a very a subjective opinion. Did you watch Dexter? It digressed from books by an impossibly huge margin, and I doubt anybody cares about that or thinks that the books have value to the show. And that's mostly true for various other shows, anime, even fanfiction, whatever, based on someone's original work.